178 karma · joined June 10, 2013
Intuitively the train should be more efficient, right? So the question imo is why does the data say otherwise: Is there less market pressure to make efficient trains? Is this data wrong? Is this intuition wrong?
(edit to include questioning the intuition itself, i.e. based on the reply comment)
If I had to guess, you don't like the Poignant Guide to Ruby: http://poignant.guide
Why is there such enthusiasm for this? If it were only about solving puzzles with clinical detachment, I doubt the guide would have gained its following. Perhaps this book is a work of art meant to convey a fascination with a purely technical subject -- but why is this so successful, when the traditional routes toward the same, namely a degree in CS taught by like minded faculty, fail in some scenarios. In my view, the reductive stance that there is no art in these disciplines, is holding us back (i.e. diminishing our culture, and hindering recruitment).
Your point about purpose is well taken, and I get that. I disagree about how easy it is to score the results, and there is some inherent inconsistency when you can simultaneously refer to elegant engineering and objectively measurable best possible solution, i.e. in the latter, elegance is not a criteria, i.e. unless you make it one, it which case the contradiction is self evident. But again, this isn't going to persuade you, however, if you want to refine your position, perhaps you omit the reference to elegance :)
Thank you, btw, for your comment.
I claim that this notion extends to code, as well, and rightly into many other engineering and scientific projects (I suspect the pure math community might agree, i.e. by my reading of how they view their own discipline).
As an informal definition of art, I offer creativity within some bounds, i.e. the rules of the medium. Often, the tighter the bounds, the higher we elevate the end result (e.g. the most praised sonnet, or work of classical music). Here the bounds are pretty constrained: bug free, implements the ISA, manufacturable, and competitive and profitable.
As with many here, I am frustrated with my work when it is reduced to "turning the crank," but I suspect many writers (e.g. your Reuter's journalist) feel the same; and of course, we could introduce other examples from other disciplines. If working on a ground breaking project, then I can focus on that and derive some satisfaction from my contribution to that end.
Finally, my point: I submit these masks as evidence of the artificial dichotomy between the liberal arts and engineering disciplines. There should be more acknowledgement of the art produced on both sides of this divide, and more crossing the aisle (so-to-speak) from the thought leaders in this debate. Of course we need to train our next generation to work with these machines, and of course we should not kick the traditional liberal arts out of the curriculum. Sheesh. But I really would like some push back that claims our ground, i.e. technical achievement of this kind as art.
I don't think it is you and I appreciate the honest comment, but from the other comments it seems that everyone here has mastered the art of fitting in the planning, shopping, prep, cooking, and cleaning. Truly amazing! Or simply surprising that they can't hypothesize about the poor folk like myself who just can't quite get there in their life.
Further, imo, the cost and packaging "waste" is nothing significant. When I shop for myself I still get packaging. Worse yet, a lot of food gets wasted anyway, i.e. because the grocery store doesn't sell me exactly as much food as I need, whereas Gobble does. I suspect this is actually more efficient, i.e. on all frontiers, especially given the waste I always generate from shopping for these ingredients.
This article is not written for physicists, engineers, or anyone else so technically trained. If it were, it would read as follows: "Electricity is a vague term used to variously refer to the many aspects of electromagnetic phenomena."
If you want to keep that sentence, and cover your bases, you could reword as "the flow of electric charge, the potential to cause the same." And in any case, the escape clause already exists as "there’s so much behind that simple statement."
I'm stuck waiting for an "invite" despite that I got the email announcement.
So the question really is, what is the long term strategy and why? It appears to me that Intel has validated some of this "custom hardware" FPGA strategy and that their view is it will be "better together."
I agree that Intel is erecting roadblocks, but I doubt it is because they "can't build a GPU," rather more likely because "they can erect roadblocks." In fact, they are obligated, by their shareholders, to erect those roadblocks (or to play dirty if you want).
One story I see here as similar to what has been happening to the GPU business: Intel controls the access to the CPU, and therefore they will have an advantage because they can hold the competing solutions at arms length over PCI.
The link is just the first result I got back from Google, but, for example, 20x perf upside claimed: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184828-intel-unveils-new-...
The other takeaway, for me anyway, is that these are interesting times because hw architecture and hw/sw co-optimization appear to be gaining in importance (i.e. because Moore's law is slowing).
1. So far, no direct corroboration. Not even on the DSWT website. 2. Poachers do appear to use poison arrows/darts. 3. DSWT appears to be the real deal, i.e. not a phony wildlife sanctuary.
I buy it that the elephants would go there. I'd like to see a better write up. Agreed that the article, as such, is a bit weak.
"any signal" huh? "spatial frequency" 2x huh? "a "DC term" corresponding to zero frequency" #seriously
This is intuitive only if you already know this stuff, which I happen to, but I have also tried to explain this to undergrads taking history and english. Terms like these are not intuitive at all.
Design automation begins: By 1974, the result was being digitized on a Calma GDS I